From: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Jello huang" <ruifeihuang@gmail.com>, "Detlef Vollmann" <dv@vollmann.ch>, "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Subject: Re: cannot fetch arm git tree Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:01:43 +0900 [thread overview] Message-ID: <buok4huzyh4.fsf@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20110121145025.GS13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (Russell King's message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:50:26 +0000") Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> writes: > I'm really not interested in working out how to bodge this into working > along side the existing gitweb setup by adding lots of rewrite rules, so > as gitweb got there first I think it has priority, that's what we have > and we'll have to live without the smart http extensions. ... > It's really not that big a deal if you follow the advice I've given. Smart http is actually a very big deal -- the old git http protocol is almost unusable in practice with big repos, at least over somewhat latency-limited network connections. If you don't intend to support people pulling over http, then maybe you don't care. But if you do care, it's very much worth a second look. [My personal reason for caring is that I'm behind a corporate firewall that's latency limited, although it seems to have pretty good bandwidth. With some public repos, pulling via the old http protocol was a multi-hour operation; the new http protocol is typically multiple orders of magnitude faster in these cases.] -Miles -- Omochiroi!
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: miles@gnu.org (Miles Bader) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: cannot fetch arm git tree Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:01:43 +0900 [thread overview] Message-ID: <buok4huzyh4.fsf@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20110121145025.GS13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (Russell King's message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:50:26 +0000") Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> writes: > I'm really not interested in working out how to bodge this into working > along side the existing gitweb setup by adding lots of rewrite rules, so > as gitweb got there first I think it has priority, that's what we have > and we'll have to live without the smart http extensions. ... > It's really not that big a deal if you follow the advice I've given. Smart http is actually a very big deal -- the old git http protocol is almost unusable in practice with big repos, at least over somewhat latency-limited network connections. If you don't intend to support people pulling over http, then maybe you don't care. But if you do care, it's very much worth a second look. [My personal reason for caring is that I'm behind a corporate firewall that's latency limited, although it seems to have pretty good bandwidth. With some public repos, pulling via the old http protocol was a multi-hour operation; the new http protocol is typically multiple orders of magnitude faster in these cases.] -Miles -- Omochiroi!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-24 5:02 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2011-01-16 2:28 cannot fetch arm git tree Jello huang 2011-01-16 9:23 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-01-16 11:08 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2011-01-16 11:08 ` Uwe Kleine-König [not found] ` <AANLkTinrZ0GnT71GCueUUpAXM5ckq+LBd0RjA51DMR-a@mail.gmail.com> 2011-01-16 13:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-01-16 13:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-01-17 1:49 ` Jello huang 2011-01-17 1:49 ` Jello huang 2011-01-21 13:38 ` Detlef Vollmann 2011-01-21 13:38 ` Detlef Vollmann 2011-01-21 13:47 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2011-01-21 13:47 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2011-01-21 13:57 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-01-21 13:57 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-01-21 14:28 ` Detlef Vollmann 2011-01-21 14:28 ` Detlef Vollmann 2011-01-21 14:30 ` Jello huang 2011-01-21 14:30 ` Jello huang 2011-01-21 14:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-01-21 14:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-01-21 15:14 ` Detlef Vollmann 2011-01-21 15:14 ` Detlef Vollmann 2011-01-21 15:25 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2011-01-21 15:25 ` Uwe Kleine-König 2011-01-24 5:01 ` Miles Bader [this message] 2011-01-24 5:01 ` Miles Bader 2011-01-24 7:21 ` Johannes Sixt 2011-01-24 7:21 ` Johannes Sixt 2011-01-24 7:34 ` J.H. 2011-01-24 7:34 ` J.H. 2011-01-24 10:53 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-01-24 10:53 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=buok4huzyh4.fsf@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com \ --to=miles@gnu.org \ --cc=dv@vollmann.ch \ --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \ --cc=ruifeihuang@gmail.com \ --cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.